What a Strong Bill Looks Like, Part 1: Consumer Protection

Solving global warming is not going to happen over night. The lawmakers dealing with climate legislation now are probably not going to be in office in 2050, when we need to have cut our global warming pollution 80%. So a key part of any climate bill is whether it’s built to last – through Congressional terms, Presidents, and generations.

We need public support for a carbon cap for at least the next 40 years as we work our way toward 80% cuts. The best way to do that is to make sure that the Senate climate bill is fair — it has to put people before polluters.

President Obama last February laid out a framework to fight global warming that was simple, fair, and built to last. All polluters would pay for greenhouse gas emissions, the President said. No exceptions. The money gathered from polluters would then be rebated to middle- and lower-income Americans while leaving $15 billion per year for investments in clean energy and green jobs.

This framework — where 100 percent of the carbon credits are auctioned and revenues used for direct consumer relief — protects consumers and ensures that polluters aren’t given a free ride.

Unfortunately, the House-passed clean energy bill was heavy on the corporate giveaways and light on the protections for energy consumers. The House version would give away 85 percent of the carbon credits for free to utilities, oil refiners and manufacturers. While consumers are offered no protection from price volatility or rate hikes in this version, industrial energy users secured protections to guarantee their bottom lines.

That’s why a coalition of heavy-hitting groups including AARP, Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumer Law Center have teamed up with CCAN to call on the Senate to establish a stronger system of consumer protection. Continue reading

How to Get a Strong Senate Climate Bill, Part 2.5: Write (another) Letter to the Editor

Right now Senator Cardin is helping draft the Senate version of a clean energy bill!

The draft is expected to be released early September when the Senate returns from their August recess. This is OUR CHANCE as Marylanders to ensure that OUR VOICE and values are written into the bill.

Cardin will only fight for a strong bill in the Senate if he is hearing from the grassroots. Sen. Cardin has personally told us that he has recently heard more public feedback against clean energy policy than for it. We must be heard at this critical moment!

Here is just a small example of what we are up against. Check out this Letter to the Editor (LTE) in the Fredrick News Post:

“The world is laughing at us. Why would we ball-and-chain our economic future when it’s scraping bottom now? Oh! I almost forgot, global warming, with the emphasis on global.”

Letters like this are being printed across the state and its time for us to respond! Please, take a moment to respond and write your own letter. JOIN CCAN’s Truth Squad and get the latest updates.

paper
Last weeks truth squad was focused on the broad benefits of a clean energy economy so this week we will focus on consumers specifically. Here are some talking points:

Consumer Pocketbook Protection

1. Thank our Senator’s for their leadership: I am encouraged by Senator Cardin and Mikulski’s past leadership on clean energy issues and are urging them to champion a strong clean energy bill in the US Senate.

2. Make Polluters Pay: The best way to protect the American consumer from rising energy costs is to make the policy fair by making polluters – not taxpayers -pay for cleaning up pollution. Make sure the Senate bill requires polluters to pay for the right to pollute.

3. Auction the Permits: The EPA says that a bill that gives permits to polluters for free will be more expensive. Protect my pocketbook by auctioning permits to polluters.

4. Rebate the Revenues to the Public: To protect my pocketbook, Senator’s Cardin and Senator Mikulski should push to auction all the pollution permits and return revenues to the public through direct rebates.

Check out Anne’s CCAN blog post to learn more about on consumer protection.

Please, let me know when you submit a letter and again when you get it published: ethan[at]chesapeakeclimate.org

Join the Truth Squad today!

Also, for more info check out our 10 ways to make your Senator a Clean Energy Champ toolkit

Obama: "I love Rick Boucher"

Cross-Posted from: here

I happened to catch the opening part of President Barack Obama’s health care town hall meeting in Bristol, Virginia. At the beginning of these, local politicians are usually acknowledged by the President. So Obama thanks the Virginia Senators and the Governor, and then mentions that the Congressman of this area is Rick Boucher. Now, Obama could leave it at acknowledging Rick Boucher like the others, but instead he goes on an elaboration of energy, saying Boucher was an early supporter of his campaign, and has worked to ensure an energy policy where clean coal is part of Virginia’s energy future, which will create jobs. Because of this, Obama proclaims “I love Rick Boucher.”

Now, as whole I’m a supporter of Obama’s presidency. After 8 years of Bush I’m infinitely happier with Obama as president. I think Obama understands the critical issues around clean energy and climate change. Although he needs to show much stronger leadership and be more vocal with the media, I have considered the stimulus investment, stronger fuel economy standards, as well as his administration’s aggressive behind the scenes arm-twisting over the Waxman-Markey bill(which I support) to be pretty good. At the same time, I’ve criticized his administration over the EPA ruling on mountaintop removal, as well as his stance on clean coal, which is no secret at this point. The tar sands aren’t looking too good either.

But the notion that Obama can stand there and proclaim such outstanding support for a bought out Congressman is absolutely disgraceful and damaging. Not just because of Boucher’s efforts to drain what should be clean energy funding into longshot carbon capture and sequestration. That you would expect Obama to support. It’s the fact that Boucher was the leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee in weakening Waxman-Markey’s emissions targets and he pushed to weaken them any further. It’s that Boucher took a 25% renewable electricity standard and a 15% efficiency standard and turned them into 20% combined together. These were the two biggest weakening effects. Although permit allocations and EPA authority are not at the top of my complaint list, Boucher had a big hand in those tamperings as well. If you could pick one member of the House that’s done the most damage to our efforts to pass a strong climate bill, it’s Rick Boucher. That’s why back in May, I was present at a direct action protest in the halls of Congress, where some blocked Boucher’s office and were arrested. At that event, one of the organizers Mike Tidwell, the director of CCAN and a friend talked about how Obama had all these goals for a good climate bill, and that Boucher was ruining Obama’s plan. If this really was so, Obama would not have such kind words for Boucher.

These kinds of remarks along with the EPA’s inability to block mountaintop removal mining makes me quite perplexed when I hear activists say we should kill the current bill so EPA can work its magic. I seriously doubt EPA would do better even if it moved in a timely fashion and cleared all the legal hurdles.

So, some general points I’m making to take away…

– I wouldn’t bet the planet on the EPA, and I doubt China or India would either. Let’s do our best to get a bill passed and improved out of the Senate that we can take to Copenhagen.

– I don’t like Rick Boucher.

– President Obama is doing some good things and some bad things. However, if he doesn’t adopt a much stronger public stance to pass a Senate bill and get a treaty in Copenhagen, his Presidency will go down in history as a colossal failure despite some of the good things he does.

– You can’t take a stronger public approach if you’re holding hands adoringly with Rick Boucher.

Burned by the Press

Cross-posted from: here

I have a column out today criticizing the media’s coverage of global warming as being so poor that too many people don’t have accurate information, or any information at all about global warming or global warming legislation. Sources are below the column.

The media: Problems of the news re-cycle

MATT DERNOGA

On June 16 the White House released the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” report. It was written by 13 government science agencies, compiled largely during the George W. Bush administration, and completed under President Barack Obama. The report lays out the specific devastating regional impacts a warming climate would have on all regions of the country, along with the current effects of greenhouse gas emissions already in the atmosphere. Continue reading

We've got the POWER!

And the resources to repower Virginia without the construction of new coal plants or drilling off our coasts. Some might think this is crazy talk but the numbers are there to back me up. I attended a Senate briefing on offshore wind potential that blew me a way! (no pun intended… okay maybe a little pun intended)

offshore windIt is safe to say now that wind both on and offshore is a REAL solution to meet our energy demands. The tides, times and technologies are changing and it’s about time we start construction on Virginia’s first offshore wind turbine.

Here’s why:

1. We have relatively shallow water and few strong hurricanes, which make us a good candidate.
2. We have the highest wind potential in the South.
3. The wind industry CREATES jobs- construction, welding, maritime, ship design and architecture. (slide 8 )
4. Nearly 25% of the investment in wind projects engage the LOCAL community (this number has the potential to grow)
5. We have sites that don’t interfere with commerce or the Navy

wind speed offshore virginia
(Click on the image to view larger size)

Then we can get into the numbers a little bit and do a simple cost comparison between offshore oil drilling and offshore wind.
Offshore wind can create 330,000 MW vs Oil from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) can create 18,000 MW (in 20 years).
Wind has 16 times the potential of offshore oil drilling! As if that’s not compelling enough, lets look at it through a lens of reducing oil imports. There is a growing trend that is pushing us towards electric vehicles (EV). One EV draws 400 W (.4kW) of electricity. Mid Atlantic cars draw 29,000 MW (EEEK!). Atlantic OCS oil could run 30% of Mid Atlantic cars for 20 years, while offshore wind would run 100% of those cars…. forever! This analysis comes from Willett Kempton’s presentation, which I’m having trouble finding online. he bottom line is there enough wind to matter and we’ve got it right here in Virginia!

It would appear Bob Dylan got it right. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

The flattening of Wise, Va.

wise_county_sealCoal is in the blood of the people of Wise County, Virginia. With a population of around 41,000, the coal industry has provided steady income for an otherwise remote part of Appalachia. Situated in the southwest corner of the Commonwealth, the county boasts several small, tight-knit communities, a functional public school system, two colleges, and a thriving sense of mountainous spirit that hallmarks Appalachian living.

It is not far fetched to argue that the socioeconomic landscape of Wise County would be drastically different without the coal industry’s presence there. The bituminous rock has served as the stovepipe economic model of Southwest Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia since the industrial revolution, and has brought intense development and employment to the region. Nowhere else on earth has coal played such a crucial role in the evolution of a region, and nowhere else do people’s very blood ooze the stuff. It is a cultural icon.

But coal is destroying Southwest Virginia, the Appalachian Mountains, and threatening the planet itself. At the epicenter of this environmental catastrophe lies Wise, a county that is crumbling under the heavy hand of King Coal. While Dominion works to construct a brand-new power plant in the region, fueled by dirty, antiquated coal, mining corporations have worked to systemically level the region through the practice of mountaintop removal mining.

The result is not a pretty one. Several mountains have already been leveled in Virginia, some of which are in Wise, while millions of tons of rock, dirt, and toxic material are shoved into neighboring valleys, preventing streams from flowing and contaminating valuable, fresh water. Sludge ponds, a result of the extremely water-intense washing process, contain billions of gallons of useless, dangerous slurry, filled with heavy metals such as nickel, cadmium, lead, and arsenic. The fragile walls that hold back these industrial cesspools are typically made of fill material, and are prone to failure (as they have several times in recent decades). Mountaintop removal represents a triple threat to Appalachia, as mountains are destroyed, streams are interred beneath tons of rock and filth, and toxic contamination threatens the health of every community in the region.
Wise County has become a battlefield for the fight against mountaintop removal, and even as federal regulators crack down on the practice, the coal industry continues to push for continued, and expanded MTR operations in Wise.

Ison Rock Ridge extends into the town of Appalachia and is dotted with several communities on either side of the elongated mountain. Most recently, big coal has tapped Ison Rock as the next notch on its long line of broken mountains that now significantly mar the landscape of Southwest Virginia. Nearby communities have been hesitant, at best, to embrace the new project, as the mountain looms over several towns and villages, and threatens to create a shower of rock and dust, a byproduct of the blasting process used to get at the coal, that is unwelcome by any standard. Already, large stones and increased logging activity have spurred a public outcry, so much that the developer has been forced to revise the permit several times and the coal-friendly government has worked to suppress any public concern over the project.

“This permit application is currently in its 9th revision- and this round the permit has changed dramatically. Federal and State law require that public comment be accepted for all permits, but the state agency in charge has denied our request to have a public hearing on this latest revision that creates an essentially new mine plan.”

Climate Carrots for China and India

Amidst high theatrics, the Senate wrapped up its climate policy hearings last week, shifting the issue to the back-burner until after the August recess. Meanwhile the climate action spotlight followed US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overseas as they brought the Obama climate lobby to China and India respectively. carrot

By now, the story of China and India is a familiar one: both countries are quickly growing into carbon spewing behemoths. Both claim climate action could hurt their economies. Neither is enthusiastic about committing to legally binding emissions cuts. Either could emerge as a spoiler in climate treaty talks in Copenhagen this December.

To its credit the Obama administration has been making some efforts to change all that recently. Hence we’ve seen the high level Chu and Clinton missions and Obama’s joint resolution with other G8 leaders on endeavoring to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, and cut emissions 80% by 2050. Trying to set a good example, the US is finally starting to talk the talk on global climate action.

But so far all this has really amounted to is a lot of talk, with no legally binding action to back it up, and promises are clearly not the kind of climate carrots that China and India will respond to. Despite diplomatic overtures by the US, neither country has signed onto the emissions reductions goals set at the G8 summit, and neither Clinton or Chu ended their climate missions with very much to show except more Chinese and Indian refusals to talk about legally binding emissions targets.

Even the Waxman-Markey bill didn’t do much to impress either country. In fact, their only real reaction to the passage of the bill was outrage at the last minute amendment imposing “carbon tariffs” on goods imported from countries without climate laws in place.

The upshot here is essentially what we in the climate movement have been saying about US leadership and the international picture all along. If we want the Chinas and Indias of the world to come on board, we have to lead by example and pass a strong climate bill that codifies our commitment to seriously addressing our own contribution to the crisis.

And this is not just a matter of inspiration. Many of the provisions that climate advocates have been calling for to make the bill effective domestically, are also exactly the kind of carrots that may enhance the international impact of the bill and produce results if dangled before countries like China and India. A bill which strictly limits allowance giveaways to polluters, for example, will produce more revenue for domestic investments in energy efficiency, green jobs and consumer protection programs, as well as international investments in the types of clean energy technology transfer programs China and India have been calling for.

All the more reason for the Senate to deliver on a strong bill this fall, and for President Obama to invest just as much high profile lobbying time on swing Senators at home as swing States abroad. For if the best approach to climate leadership abroad is through climate leadership at home, then Obama’s best international lobby strategy must rest on a strong Senate lobby strategy.

Japan may get new Leadership

Cross-Posted from: here

There’s an article in the Washington Post today about how Japan’s Prime Minister is dissolving parliament and calling elections on August 30. There’s a real possibility that Japan’s current Liberal Democratic Party will lose to the Japanese Democratic Party. Why is this relevant? Well, one of the biggest dissapointments in international negotiations so far has been Japan’s unfortunate emissions target of 8% below 1990 levels and only 2% lower than their Kyoto target.

This begs the question, would a new party in control of Japan lead to a stronger stance on emissions targets, and help move talks forward? The answer appears to be…yes! On paper anyways. You never know what happens once a party actually gets into power. However, compared to what Japan’s current leadership is committing to, I can’t imagine the replacement government could be much worse. Now I realize that the US, China, and India are much bigger hindrances to a strong treaty in Copenhagen. However, Japan is the world’s second largest economy, and a developed country. A bold move by Japan could help ease the deadlock, and commit much needed funds to international adaptation and clean energy efforts. China and Japan also have some ill will to each other, so Japan stepping up on their obligations could be meaningful. I’m posting a couple excerpts on the positions of the Japanese Democratic Party below. I’m also no expert on Japanese politics, so if anyone knows more than me, please chime in.

“Japan’s main opposition party will adopt bolder greenhouse gas cuts than the government by using the global emissions market and increasing green jobs if it wins an upcoming election, the party’s head of green policy said on Wednesday.”

“The country’s 2020 target to cut emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels Aso announced in June provoked widespread criticism for being too weak and barely tougher than Japan’s current Kyoto target, which it has struggled to meet.”

“Tetsuro Fukuyama, also the Democrats’ deputy policy chief, said the party’s 2020 target to cut emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels would impose regulations to curb emissions and incentives for energy conservation, increased use of renewable energy and development of green technology.”

“The minus 15 percent target versus 2005 is equivalent to a cut of only 8 percent below 1990 levels.

“It just doesn’t go far enough,” Fukuyama said. “How can they dare to persuade China and India with that number?”

How to Get a Strong Senate Climate Bill, Part 2: Write a Letter to the Editor

Have you ever read something on the opinion page that was completely bogus and upset you? Of course, we all have. Did you huff and puff and get another cup of coffee before angrily turning to the sports page for relief? I’ve been there. Well, CCAN has a remedy that will fit into your busy schedule and not leave you feeling disgruntled with that intolerable opinion page. Its easy. Join our “Truth Squad” and use our talking points to draft your own Letter to the Editor (LTE). Believe it or not the opinion page is the most read section in the newspaper and elected officials pay close attention to what people are writing about them. Time for us to defend the truth! Be a part of the story and not let misinformation rule your opinion page.

We are at a critical juncture in Federal clean energy policy. The Waxman-Markey ACES bill that passed the House falls short of delivering on the promise of a new, clean energy economy. Fortunately as Maryland citizens we have a real opportunity to strengthen the bill. Our US Senators, Sen. Mikulski and Sen. Cardin, are outspoken supporters of strong clean energy policy.

However, they will have a hard fight in the Senate and need YOUR help to become true clean energy champions. Senator Cardin has personally told us that he has recently heard more public feedback against clean energy policy than for it. So you responded. We must be heard at this critical moment! We need to step it up and show our Senators the broad public support in Maryland for a strong clean energy bill.

Plus have you been following the articles in the Baltimore Sun? There have been a slew of outrageously inaccurate claims against clean energy policy. Time to respond! Join CCAN’s Truth Squad to and be in the cutting edge. You get about 2 emails a month with all the tools you need to write your own LTE.

These articles range from the classic “this is a tax that will hurt the economy” arguments to “carbon dioxide is good.” (Plus, my personal favorite is from Sarah Palin in the Washington Post.) Read these ridiculous articles and get fired up to respond.

Global warming alarmism enriches Gore, bankrupts the rest of us
Carbon dioxide is natural byproduct, not pollution
Cap and trade is a tax hike by another name
Obama’s dangerous game with energy policy
Palin: The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End

Please, take a moment to respond to these. The common theme is all economics. They are trying to scare people into inaction during the recession, but we know the truth is that a strong clean energy bill is good for the economy. Also, mention that you are ready to see our Senators be bold leaders. Here are some talking points:

Strong Clean Energy Policy is good for the economy (Despite what the authors of these articles say)

1. Clean energy creates jobs: Investments in energy efficiency and clean energy, like wind and solar, creates FOUR TIMES as many jobs per dollar investment in dirty energy like coal and oil

2. New jobs: Numerous well researched studies have shown that a strong federal clean energy bill will generate over 1.7 million new clean energy jobs. (Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09)

3. True Energy Independence: True energy independence means breaking our dependence on the depleting, and therefore increasingly expensive, domestic reserves of oil and gas and generating domestic ‘home grown’ energy like wind and solar

4. Global Economic Powerhouse: Let’s harness American ingenuity and lead the world economy in exports of new clean energy technology. A strong clean energy bill is needed to position us at the forefront of this burgeoning global market

5. Leadership: I am encouraged by Senator Cardin and Mikulski’s past leadership on clean energy issues and are urging them to champion a strong clean energy bill in the US Senate.

Please, let me know when you submit a letter and again when you get it published: ethan[at]chesapeakeclimate.org

Join the “Truth Squad” today!

Also, for more info check out our 10 ways to make your Senator a Clean Energy Champ toolkit

LTE contact info for your paper:
The Cecil Whig: whigletters@chespub.com
Prince Georges Co. Gazette: princegeorges@gazette.net
Baltimore Sun: talkback@baltimoresun.com
Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Annapolis Capital: capletts@capitalgazette.com
Washington Times: letters@washingtontimes.com
Carroll Co. Gazette: carroll@gazette.net
Frederick Co. Gazette: Frederick@gazette.net
Montgomery Co. Gazette: letters@gazette.net
The Star Democrat: eastonedit@chespub.com
The County Times of Southern Maryland: tobiepulliam@countytimes.net
Baltimore Messenger, Jeffersonian, Northeast Booster, Northeast Reporter, Owings Mills Times, Towson Times or North County News: kweiss@patuxent.com
The Avenue (Baltimore): aveeditorial@chespub.com
The Northeast Booster (Baltimore): dsturm@patuxent.com
Maryland Independent: abreck@somdnews.com
The Enterprise: rboyd@somdnews.com
The Recorder: clovejoy@somdnews.com
The Calvert Independent: editorial@calvertindependent.com
City Paper (DC): mail@washingtoncitypaper.com